As a famous star told me, when the audience loves something to an extreme, the media will say it's a gimmick, and from then on, any true "artist," director will shun it like the plague

The directors, consumers and media all simultaneously declared 3D was a gimmick, because for the past 5 years 90% of 3D movies have been nothing more than popcorn turn-your-brain-off action blockbusters.

Martin Scorsese, Ang Lee, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Alfonso Cuaron, Werner Herzog and Wim Wenders are fighting the good fight, but for some mysterious reason these movies do not count in the eyes of those who say 3D itself is a gimmick and not a tool.

Interesting comments guys I believe if a movie in 3D i want the full 3D experience depth pop out everything that 3D brings movies like Godzilla are giving 3D a bad name my three friends thought the 3D sucked in it
I know we cant have Hugo and Avatar 3D quality with every movie but thats what the we all want surely

I suppose it boils down to what you think the purpose of 3D cinematography is. Is it to "wow" the audience? IMO, the "wow" factor is reserved primarily for things that are new. And 3D is not new, by any stretch. This method of 3D has, in various forms, been around for over a century. People understood the limitations of 2D photography almost as soon as it was invented.

My belief is that 3D should be used to mimic reality as closely as possible, for the sake of immersion, not for "wow". When you walk down the street and look at the world around you, that's the most perfect 3D that exists for human eyes, and yet at no point does it "amaze" you. The films that achieve that are the ones that the viewers, as some say, "forget the 3D is there". That's a good thing, IMO, not something to be derided and shamed.

For those that think otherwise, I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I will, as I did here, is attempt to explain what Hollywood is thinking. Because, based on the last couple of years, they seem to be following the "realistic" approach to 3D, which means a lot of people that are in it for some kind of "experience" are going to be mightily disappointed moving forward, as fewer and fewer films meet your needs for the "wow" factor.

Also consider that what we have here is an intermediate format. 3D or not, we're still shooting and displaying on a 2D plane, and simply doing the best we can to mimic true 3D. No matter how good it is, we're still "faking it". Once we move on to things like holographic recording and display, then all presentations will simply be realistic 3D, and your own eyes will create the effect, rather than the display.

I suppose it boils down to what you think the purpose of 3D cinematography is. Is it to "wow" the audience? IMO, the "wow" factor is reserved primarily for things that are new. And 3D is not new, by any stretch.

The purpose of 3D is to add an additional visual element that enhances the experience. What difference does it make how long it's been around? Color isn't new. Music isn't new. Special effects aren't new. Animation isn't new. If 3D is just another established storytelling tool, it should be used to maximum effect like all the others.

Quote:

For those that think otherwise, I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I will, as I did here, is attempt to explain what Hollywood is thinking. Because, based on the last couple of years, they seem to be following the "realistic" approach to 3D, which means a lot of people that are in it for some kind of "experience" are going to be mightily disappointed moving forward, as fewer and fewer films meet your needs for the "wow" factor.

I imagine sitting in the boardroom of a Hollywood studio, while one of the execs explains his plans to mightily disappoint audiences moving forward. I uh, guess that's one way to go. But banking on ticket buyers suddenly developing a taste for their sophisticated brand of 3D-lite is a bad bet.

Interesting comments guys I believe if a movie in 3D i want the full 3D experience depth pop out everything that 3D brings movies like Godzilla are giving 3D a bad name my three friends thought the 3D sucked in it
I know we cant have Hugo and Avatar 3D quality with every movie but thats what the we all want surely

I don't consider what Hugo did with foreground 3D to be "popout." Hugo's was pretty much limited to a couple brilliant emotionally-charged scenes that brought you closer to the characters both literally and figuratively. Avatar, well, maybe some jelly fish were floating in front of the screen, but I couldn't tell because I wasn't paying attention to the stereo window, I just watch the middle of the screen. Hugo's foreground heads on the other hand were coming out so far that it made my eyes strain, so I was more than aware that things were unusually close. But it was a really interesting feeling when paired with faces and certain emotions. Fear, intimidation for the train cop, cuteness and friendship for the dog, and love and appreciation and respect for Ben Kingsley. The close proximity increased emotional attachment in a real way that you can't get when they feel like they're 40 feet away.

..based on the last couple of years, they seem to be following the "realistic" approach to 3D

The real problem is Hollywood is taking a modular approach with 3D, where they just tack on a second eye to a traditional shotlist and push and pull the 3D strength down when there's dialog and up when there's action, because they think that that's when we want to see things pop.

The critically acclaimed 3D films like Gravity, Hugo, Life of Pi, etc allow 3D to take over in an artistic way, as a way to express something about the film. Those other action movies try to use 3D in just a physical way. All brawn, no brains.

Hollywood can't apply Gravity or Hugo's 3D efforts to all their 3D films because the latter are emotionally shallow and visually generic. So it's not just about simply making the 3D not suck- the movies themselves play a huge role, because 3D works best when everyone's department is on the same page. That's how to make 3D succeed, and the sad fact is Hollywood doesn't want to do that, they just want to cut corners and tack it on as if adding stereo depth is all it takes to make a good 3D movie. And this forum has it wrong- strong stereo is NOT the simple solution, as I said it takes a redesign from scratch to make a good 3D film. Popout won't save it either, because again, a film has to be designed with it in mind and the popout would have to drive the story, and in most cases, like action blockbusters, it doesn't.

The purpose of 3D is to add an additional visual element that enhances the experience. What difference does it make how long it's been around? Color isn't new. Music isn't new. Special effects aren't new. Animation isn't new. If 3D is just another established storytelling tool, it should be used to maximum effect like all the others.

Those effects aren't used to maximum effect though. Benjamin Button, Forest Gump are examples of good films that use SFX sparingly to achieve a desired effect. That doesn't mean 3D should be barely noticeable or only used for 2 or 3 instances-I'm just saying that your comparison is flawed. Same with color- you don't see reviews in the early days critiquing "This movie didn't use the full range of colors."

If 3D is just another established storytelling tool, it should be used to maximum effect like all the others.

But what is "maximum effect"? At the very least, I suppose you'd want full 60mm separation for distant objects. But how do you guarantee exactly 60mm separation on an IMAX screen and a 55" LCD in your living room?

And there's balance to consider... you can't have maximum distant separation and maximum pop-out in the same shot.. the eye balks at it. Believe me on that one, I've done it. The discomfort in trying to focus on it is immediate, borderline painful, and not something I'd want to repeat.

You gave some really bad examples, too. Color is often reduced for effect, much moreso than the few cases where it's increased. The majority of visual effects in film are things you don't even notice. Plate cleanup, matte paintings, backgrounds, wire removal.. the "blatant" effects like giant monsters are actually the minority. I'd be willing to bet that less than half, probably significantly less than half, of the total visual effects shots used in Godzilla actually had a monster in them. I've done both, and my best work are the shots you wouldn't even know were VFX at all.

For those that think otherwise, I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I will, as I did here, is attempt to explain what Hollywood is thinking. Because, based on the last couple of years, they seem to be following the "realistic" approach to 3D, which means a lot of people that are in it for some kind of "experience" are going to be mightily disappointed moving forward, as fewer and fewer films meet your needs for the "wow" factor.

I saw X-Men in 2D today; my brother, who is a fan of 3D, was adamant in his refusal to see the 3D version due to all the disappointing releases this year. I really couldn't argue with him. If I'm expected to pay a premium for a 3D movie, I want some kind of "experience" to justify that added cost, not a movie which by and large looks like its 2D counterpart. The diminishing returns for 3D would suggest a lot more people feel that way as well. If Hollywood can't understand that kind of thinking then 3D in the movie theater - and by extension at home - is in deep trouble.

People keep talking about "diminishing returns", yet the only news I see is touting how much money the 3D version of such-and-such a movie made. Anybody have numbers on Godzilla yet? Probably pretty respectable, if for nothing more than lack of choice. I think the theater I saw it at only had one or two screens showing 2D, the others, including their big-loud theater, was 3D. Statistically, that theater probably made a lot more in 3D than it did in 2D.

People keep talking about "diminishing returns", yet the only news I see is touting how much money the 3D version of such-and-such a movie made. Anybody have numbers on Godzilla yet? Probably pretty respectable, if for nothing more than lack of choice. I think the theater I saw it at only had one or two screens showing 2D, the others, including their big-loud theater, was 3D. Statistically, that theater probably made a lot more in 3D than it did in 2D.

According to Box Office Mojo, 51% of its opening weekend gross came from 3D showings.

Everything I've ever read points to a flat or slightly decreasing 3D share of movie revenues since 2010; this article is an example though a quick google search yields many more that basically say the same thing:

I'm not a 3D hater, far from it; I just think Hollywood's attitude towards 3D presentation, coupled with the negative opinions of so many filmmakers, will make it harder and harder to sustain going forward.

Those effects aren't used to maximum effect though. Benjamin Button, Forest Gump are examples of good films that use SFX sparingly to achieve a desired effect.

If the shots were achieved as well as the technology would allow, then this would be an example of maximum effect. I honestly have no idea what else maximum effect could possible mean? More cowbell? Exploding seats in the theater maybe?

People keep talking about "diminishing returns", yet the only news I see is touting how much money the 3D version of such-and-such a movie made. Anybody have numbers on Godzilla yet? Probably pretty respectable, if for nothing more than lack of choice. I think the theater I saw it at only had one or two screens showing 2D, the others, including their big-loud theater, was 3D. Statistically, that theater probably made a lot more in 3D than it did in 2D.

I thought it was common knowledge that most 3D movies the last couple years have been averaging about a 30:70 3D to 2D revenue split.

I thought it was common knowledge that most 3D movies the last couple years have been averaging about a 30:70 3D to 2D revenue split.

It's only been around a couple of years. That's not diminishing.. that's where it's always been. Seeing it drop to 20:80, then 10:90, that would be "diminishing". 30%'s nothing to sneeze at, and how much of that can be explained by the number of 3D theaters available? Around here, we've upgraded, but I don't think the entire country has a 3D theater within easy reach.

It's only been around a couple of years. That's not diminishing.. that's where it's always been. Seeing it drop to 20:80, then 10:90, that would be "diminishing".

3D has been around since before Avatar, which was more than 4.5 years ago.

You could hope for at least 55% opening weekend 3D share back in 2010:

That dropped to about 45% in 2011:

I don't actively research sales anymore, but 30% is what I regularly hear when I come across the topic.

But I've been hearing some impressive numbers for some of these action movies lately. Also the last time I paid attention to local showtimes (was probably a year ago), the number of 3D screenings was considerably lower than 2D-- but I just checked and the ratio is closer to 50:50 or even better.

Got the disk in Saturday and was excited to see this since I last saw the story when I was a kid at the Texas Theater in San Antonio. I did not go to the theater to see it on the big screen.

The new 21st century story was much different so other than the title, I found this new version held my interest and the story not ridiculously stupid as I had anticipated.

The 3D was average good conversion quality but the entire movie was a little on the dark side to please me 100%. Many scenes were vignetted ( a soft shading to black around the edges) unnecessarily which, IMO, ruins a 3D effect and pulls me apart from being sucked into the movie reality. I don't even like this used in 2D except for pictures that hang on the wall. Anyway, there were a few scenes that had some foreground ghosting of objects in the first 10 minutes but these 3D errors were non existent beyond that point. I wonder if the company that did the conversions ( Stereo D) were rushed or under budget. The conversion wasn't horrible, I just have seen many others that were better done.

What saved the movie for me, was the sound track. IMO, it is the best sound track of any in my collection. The audio was DTS Master audio 7.1 and the sfx took really good advantage of the rear surrounds with superb placement and volume. My 4 subs ( 2 15" and 2 10") were hitting close to 2000 watts on the meters and I was concerned I might blow a circuit breaker but while heating up it never did. The big Carver amps handled it. What didn't make it through the movie was a vase I had in the room that shattered. It's been a long time since that happened! So, word of warning if you like loud and have a big sound system. Back off a little on the volume control or remove any ceramic and glass vases in the room.

I was surprised by how much depth (separation) the presentation had, even on the small screen. But, again, while the 3D conversion was overseen by the director and is even his "preferred" viewing method, the film wasn't shot for it. It does the best with what it was shot with, which I guess is all you can hope for with a non-native-shot title.

This was a mediocre movie. Its so-called plot was ludicrous, its story lines broken, its acting non-existent. Perhaps it was foolish of me to think that "Godzilla" and a good movie could co-exist. However, Jurrasic Park, I believe, demonstrates that it could have been done.

jmeyers- I'm inclined to agree because of the 3D quality but then I do like the sound track. It's literally the best in my collection. I may watch it one more time before returning the rental, but might have to own this one for the sound track alone. Maybe wait for the discounts to appear. If one has only a 5.1 sound system with limited power in the subs, you may not understand. I now wonder what this sounded like in an IMAX theater with 25,000 watts!?

jmeyers- I'm inclined to agree because of the 3D quality but then I do like the sound track. It's literally the best in my collection. I may watch it one more time before returning the rental, but might have to own this one for the sound track alone. Maybe wait for the discounts to appear. If one has only a 5.1 sound system with limited power in the subs, you may not understand. I now wonder what this sounded like in an IMAX theater with 25,000 watts!?

I enjoyed the audio on this as well, but it has it's issues at the same time. As it's been measured over on data-bass and I heard many times watching the film, there is quite a bit of clipping in the track which knocks it down a notch. Also, while the bass that is there is LOUD, it is not deep. It's still a fun HT audio ride IMO, but far from the best on blu due to these two issues which may or may not bother you and you may or may not notice due to all the variables between users/equipment.